> 51-49 falls apart because the 51 can dictate the 49, I assume? Great, then what about having the 49 (as of total vote) having found ways to dictate the 51? That would be even more instable, wouldn't it?

I mean the issue is dictating isn't it? I think the congressional setup in America makes a lot of sense generally speaking, though it's not without faults.

> he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal.

So do we do historical revisionism or not? When do we draw the line? Do we shame people for killing and enslaving Native Americans when that's what people did at the time? I honestly find this strangely confusing.

> The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.

Not sure I follow this comparison all that much. The South lost and erected statues in the southern states. It's not really all that comparable to Napoleon statues in the UK. At least not that I can see.

When exactly did Napoleon exterminate and enslave the people of the countries he "conquered" (he usually defeated them in a decisive battle and then had them sign treaties, he never dissolved, e.g. the Prussian Empire). He did reintroduce slavery in the French colonies, and should be called out for it. As should France and all other countries on their colonial history, and they are.

A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?

Sorry I just disagree, and starting wars and killing hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to exterminating and enslaving people as far as my moral compass is concerned.

I'm not really here to defend statues or whatever, but I just don't follow the logic in who we decide was a bad man.

> A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?

These are comparable to the US civil war?

IMHO, the Napoleonic Wars were the , given the people involved, inevitable conclusion of the Revolutionary Wars. And those were started by the First Coalition as a reaction to the French Revolution. So just as WW1 it is not all that easy who is responsible for those wars. Just look up the First Coalition for more details.